Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Laura R via Origami]

It occurs to me that including a chapter about origami (its history, 
applications, etc.) in introductory art history textbooks would be a good way 
to open up this field to other players. Have you noticed that there is nothing 
about paper folding in undergraduate textbooks such as Gardner’s Art Through 
the Ages (probably the most widely used textbook for introductory art courses 
in US universities)? Anyone who completes a background in areas such as art 
history, museum studies, or gallery management has virtually no knowledge of 
paper folding and its rich range of ramifications. Making people aware during 
their formation years would be a good starting point to stimulate more research 
and change perceptions. 
Now, don’t ask me how to help introduce that chapter into textbooks… 
At least there are some encyclopedia articles, well written, such as Nick 
Robinson’s article in Encyclopaedia Britannica. But this is not at all enough. 
I’m talking about a well researched chapter ranging a wide scope of areas in 
which folding (paper, metal, etc) is being applied. 
Laura Rozenberg


> On Sep 11, 2025, at 11:00 AM, Lorenzo via Origami 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Tung,
> 
> I continue to notice that the strongest contributions, which tend to define 
> origami as art, this desire to elevate the technique of origami to art, come 
> from creative origamists (e.g. Manuel Sirgo, whom you mention).
> For me, the exact opposite should happen: people who are not involved in 
> origami but are knowledgeable about art (academy teachers and curators, for 
> example) should approach our world and perceive and reveal its artistic 
> value. If this has not yet happened, perhaps it is because the time is not 
> yet right, and I see no reason to force the issue, especially from within.
> 
> I strongly believe in the value of expertise, and I would really like people 
> who know their stuff to analyse the technique of origami and its expressive 
> potential for the individual (or artist). Because one of the criteria for 
> recognising a piece of art is that it conveys the artist's feelings, their 
> intimate need to express themselves, their vision... and so on. Therefore, in 
> my opinion, it is an external, educated and competent “audience” that can 
> understand whether an origami production is a sufficiently valid tool for 
> artistic expression.
> 
> What we simply like is not necessarily art, and the keypoint is here in my 
> opinion: we all like origami so much, we love origami, and therefore we can't 
> accept that it is not (yet) considered Art. I also love ice cream a lot, but 
> it is not art (for example because -but not only- it does not express any 
> artist's wish/feeling/desire/meaning/concepts..., even if it's artisanal).
> 
> In my involvement with the world of contemporary art, I have met curators and 
> gallery owners who have impressed me with their expertise and analytical 
> skills... and so, for me, as long as it is not the world of contemporary art 
> (with its enthusiasts) that deals with origami, I remain sceptical.
> What I know for sure is that we origami artists cannot, and should not, be 
> the ones to say whether origami is art, precisely because it is a concept 
> that changes with the times and, above all, represents the sensibilities of 
> societies, era by era... and these trends are the subject of analysis and 
> study, in which we have no expertise.
> 
> In general, I tend to be allergic to anything that is 'self-styled' or 
> ‘self-proclaimed’ (and hence my opposition to our growing need to elevate 
> Origami to Art at all costs).
> 
> Finally, I completely disagree with: 
> " There's something absurd about the question “what is art?” "
> because art (or perhaps art above all else) deserves to be studied, 
> understood and only then reasonably defined. When some of us are confused 
> about finding a definition of art, it is because we do not know what art is, 
> we do not know its origins, characteristics, purposes, limits... but 
> nevertheless we want to talk about it and we pretend to know that Origami is 
> Art.
> 
> If nothing matters, there is nothing to save.
> 
> Ciao,
> Lorenzo
> 
> 
> On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 14:30, Tung Ken Lam  > wrote:
>> Hi Lorenzo, Manuel and others,
>> 
>> I address a couple of specific points for those who have not read or viewed 
>> the talks cited earlier.
>> 
>> Lorenzo Lucioni: All of your links are related to us origamists. Is there 
>> anyone who is not an origamist who has defined origami as art, or is it only 
>> us, folders and creators, who define origami as art? 
>> 
>> Yes, the talks are by paperfolders and draw on other paperfolders’ 
>> experiences and ideas, e.g. Paul Jackson, Dave Mitchell and Eric Kenneway 
>> who concludes that origami is NOT art. 
>> Dewi Brunet (https://cfcorigami.com/convention/cfc4-colchester) prefers the 
>> broader term folding instead of origami because of its negative connotations.
>> 
>> H

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Tung Ken Lam via Origami]

 Hi Laura,

I think paperfolding has been a part of art and design education for a long 
time, from Froebel’s kindergarten to the Bauhaus.

However, paperfolding as an artistic medium is rare (which is why Bauhaus 
paperfolding is so well-known in the origami world).

More recently, some people have tried to promote origami as art, e.g. Meher 
McArthur’s ‘New Expressions in Origami Art’ 
https://www.tuttlepublishing.com/origami/new-expressions-in-origami-art

>From what I can tell, this has not had much of an effect on the elite art 
>world. Some curators might be active, but there are not enough critics and 
>collectors to make an art market.

Eric Kenneway wrote that “A proper perception of origami can only be achieved 
by doing it.”

Regards,
Tung Ken



On Thursday, 11 September 2025, 16:08:45 GMT+1, Laura R via Origami 
 wrote:


... a chapter about origami (its history, applications, etc.) in introductory 
art history textbooks would be a good way to open up this field to other players

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Tung Ken Lam via Origami]

 Hi Lorenzo, Manuel and others,
I address a couple of specific points for those who have not read or viewed the 
talks cited earlier.
Lorenzo Lucioni: All of your links are related to us origamists. Is there 
anyone who is not an origamist who has defined origami as art, or is it only 
us, folders and creators, who define origami as art? 
Yes, the talks are by paperfolders and draw on other paperfolders’ experiences 
and ideas, e.g. Paul Jackson, Dave Mitchell and Eric Kenneway who concludes 
that origami is NOT art. Dewi Brunet 
(https://cfcorigami.com/convention/cfc4-colchester) prefers the broader term 
folding instead of origami because of its negative connotations.
However, the first two talks also draw on artists, critics and writers outside 
of the world of origami, e.g. Walter Benjamin, Rich Gold, John Berger and 
Grayson Perry who give valuable insights.
Photography was mentioned because of the pithy quote, but it could equally been 
any other activity like needlework or flower arranging:
“There’s something absurd about the question ‘what is art ?’ and something 
equally absurd about the fine art experts who give the impression that they 
know the answer. The definition of art has changed greatly through history. ... 
Only 100 years ago needlework and flower arranging were considered to be art - 
while photography and film were definitely not art.” 
https://timhunkin.com/95_isitart.htm 
I think that’s also what Lee Armstrong was implying, origami doesn’t have to 
imitate the globalised elite art world to have value.
Manuel Sirgo Álvarez: if [origami] not art, what is it? Useless craftsmanship? 
Special decorative handiwork? 
For some, ‘mathematical art’ has the same kind of relationship with the art 
world as origami does: see George Hart’s article ‘What Can We Say About 
“Math/Art”?’ https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202404/noti2920/noti2920.html 
Manuel’s examples of amateur football might be classed as ‘folk art’ and 
professional football might be ‘popular art’ (Rich Gold). 
Perhaps the last world should go to Ian Sansom from his book ‘Paper: An Elegy’:
“Mrs. Delany’s [paper] flowers ...[are] periodically rediscovered by artists, 
writers and feminists, though Germaine Greer dismisses them entirely … ‘women 
have been kept busy wasting their time.’ Greer hits the nail on the head but 
entirely misses the point. Paper... is forever reminding us that we live in the 
land of darkness and the shadow of death, and that we shall all be changed, for 
this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on 
immortality. Is paper art a waste of time? Yes, absolutely. Of course. What 
isn’t?”

Regards,Tung Ken
  

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Hi Tung,

I continue to notice that the strongest contributions, which tend to define
origami as art, this desire to elevate the technique of origami to art,
come from creative origamists (e.g. Manuel Sirgo, whom you mention).

For me, the exact opposite should happen: people who are not involved in
origami but are knowledgeable about art (academy teachers and curators, for
example) should approach our world and perceive and reveal its artistic
value. If this has not yet happened, perhaps it is because the time is not
yet right, and I see no reason to force the issue, especially from within.

I strongly believe in the value of expertise, and I would really like
people who know their stuff to analyse the technique of origami and its
expressive potential for the individual (or artist). Because one of the
criteria for recognising a piece of art is that it conveys the artist's
feelings, their intimate need to express themselves, their vision... and so
on. Therefore, in my opinion, it is an external, educated and competent
“audience” that can understand whether an origami production is a
sufficiently valid tool for artistic expression.

What we simply like is not necessarily art, and the keypoint is here in my
opinion: we all like origami so much, we love origami, and therefore we
can't accept that it is not (yet) considered Art. I also love ice cream a
lot, but it is not art (for example because -but not only- it does not
express any artist's wish/feeling/desire/meaning/concepts..., even if it's
artisanal).

In my involvement with the world of contemporary art, I have met curators
and gallery owners who have impressed me with their expertise and
analytical skills... and so, for me, as long as it is not the world of
contemporary art (with its enthusiasts) that deals with origami, I remain
sceptical.
What I know for sure is that we origami artists cannot, and should not, be
the ones to say whether origami is art, precisely because it is a concept
that changes with the times and, above all, represents the sensibilities of
societies, era by era... and these trends are the subject of analysis and
study, in which we have no expertise.

In general, I tend to be allergic to anything that is 'self-styled' or
‘self-proclaimed’ (and hence my opposition to our growing need to elevate
Origami to Art at all costs).
Finally, I completely disagree with:
" There's something absurd about the question “what is art?” "
because art (or perhaps art above all else) deserves to be studied,
understood and only then reasonably defined. When some of us are confused
about finding a definition of art, it is because we do not know what art
is, we do not know its origins, characteristics, purposes, limits... but
nevertheless we want to talk about it and we pretend to know that Origami
is Art.

If nothing matters, there is nothing to save.

Ciao,
Lorenzo


On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 14:30, Tung Ken Lam  wrote:

> Hi Lorenzo, Manuel and others,
>
> I address a couple of specific points for those who have not read or
> viewed the talks cited earlier.
>
> Lorenzo Lucioni: All of your links are related to us origamists. Is there
> anyone who is not an origamist who has defined origami as art, or is it
> only us, folders and creators, who define origami as art?
>
> Yes, the talks are by paperfolders and draw on other paperfolders’
> experiences and ideas, e.g. Paul Jackson, Dave Mitchell and Eric Kenneway
> who concludes that origami is NOT art.
> Dewi Brunet (https://cfcorigami.com/convention/cfc4-colchester) prefers
> the broader term folding instead of origami because of its negative
> connotations.
>
> However, the first two talks also draw on artists, critics and writers
> outside of the world of origami, e.g. Walter Benjamin, Rich Gold, John
> Berger and Grayson Perry who give valuable insights.
>
> Photography was mentioned because of the pithy quote, but it could equally
> been any other activity like needlework or flower arranging:
>
> “There’s something absurd about the question ‘what is art ?’ and something
> equally absurd about the fine art experts who give the impression that they
> know the answer. The definition of art has changed greatly through history.
> ... Only 100 years ago needlework and flower arranging were considered to
> be art - while photography and film were definitely not art.”
> https://timhunkin.com/95_isitart.htm
>
> I think that’s also what Lee Armstrong was implying, origami doesn’t have
> to imitate the globalised elite art world to have value.
>
> Manuel Sirgo Álvarez: if [origami] not art, what is it? Useless
> craftsmanship? Special decorative handiwork?
>
> For some, ‘mathematical art’ has the same kind of relationship with the
> art world as origami does: see George Hart’s article ‘What Can We Say About
> “Math/Art”?’
> https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202404/noti2920/noti2920.html
>
> Manuel’s examples of amateur football might be classed as ‘folk art’ and
> professional football might be ‘popular art’ 

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Hi Hans,

Thank you for your interesting contributions regarding the wording itself.

As long as the need is to be recognised as Artists by the Art world
(capital letter), to be admitted to exhibitions and shows, I do not believe
that the issue is merely a wording issue. On the contrary, I believe that
the words 'Art' and 'Artist', when linked by us to Origami, are mostly used
with the meaning of Art with a capital A.
>From memory, I can say that this has been a trend in recent years. If it
were purely a question of wording, I think it would have existed 20 years
ago as well.

Moreover, let me say that in Italian (my mother tongue), "piegatura della
carta" is very rare and too generic (I just saw it in the first books about
craft from the last century), and the term "origami" is much more
widespread, especially nowadays. Perhaps in Spain or Germany, 'papel
plegado' or 'papier falten' is more explanatory, I don't know, but I tend
to believe that this was true a few decades ago, whereas today the word
'origami' is widely used and known.

Finally, in Italian, to define someone who folds (or creates) origami, we
widely use 'Origamista' (Origamist), and this word is not at all rare,
whereas, on the contrary, we never use 'Artista Origami' (or at least in
30+ years I have practically never heard it mentioned, (apart, of course,
from those very few cases of people who explicitly want to identify
themselves as artists). The same thing in German: I have never heard
Origami-Künstler, while Papierfalter is very common (i.e., even in this
language, you do not have to resort to 'Origami Artist' to identify an
origamist, even if He/She creates Origami).

Regards,
Lorenzo



On Sun, 14 Sept 2025 at 06:57, Papirfoldning.dk 
wrote:

> About the term "origami artist": I believe it appears because of how the
> English language is formed and that calling yourself an "origami artist"
> does not necessarily imply that you believe you are doing Art with a
> capital A.
>
> The word "origami" was successfully introduced by Lillian Oppenheimer as a
> brand name for paper folding. I like how the name is used across all
> languages I know of, and I like the branding part. However, the term has a
> couple of downsides, too.
>
> One is that "Origami" incorporates the material (paper) and the technique
> (folding) into one word, and that is a limitation. I do not consider myself
> a "paper artist", but a "folder", and will happily fold in other materials.
> The same way that a painter or a sculptor do not imply the materials used
> for painting or sculpting. Note that qualifying the artist form with the
> material can be used, like in "oil painter". See the ChatGPT lookup at the
> end of the mail.
>
> Another is that common people do not know the word, whereas they do know
> the native words like "paper folding" in English, "papirfoldning" in
> Danish, "piegatura della carta" in Italian or "plegado de papel" in
> Spanish. I treat "origami" and "papirfoldning" synonymously, and I use
> questions such as "what is oregano?" as a prompt to talk about origami, but
> sometimes it would be nice if people just knew the term out of the box.
>
> For the current discussion, a third downside is that as a new noun there
> is no verb and no derived profession name. For instance, if you make a
> painting, you paint and you are a painter. If you make sculptures, you
> sculpt and you are a sculptor. However, if you make origami, you ??? and
> you are a ???. In such cases, English language uses the construction "[art
> form] artist" cf. the list at the end of my mail.
>
> "Origami artist" is precisely that linguistic form. Had we stuck to "paper
> folding", we would have called ourselves "folders", or perhaps "paper
> folders". Now that looses the connection to the brand, "origami", and also
> "folder" are not common enough to be recognised by the public as an
> established profession or crafting discipline. "Origamist" is sometimes
> tentatively used, but feels clumsy as it is a really rare word.
>
> Hence you may end up using "origami artist" without actually implying what
> you make is Art with a capital A. Just like if you (or a small child) are
> painting, you are a painter without implying that you are making Art -
> whether that painting is walls or illustrations or something else.
>
> Best regards,
> Hans
>
> *Results provided by ChatGPT-5*
> Commonly used “[something] artist”
> • performance artist – creates live, often experimental art events.
> • conceptual artist – focuses on the idea rather than the object.
> • visual artist – broad term for artists working in visual media.
> • digital artist – creates art using digital tools.
> • multimedia artist – works with multiple media (video, sound,
> installation).
> • video artist – works with video as an artistic medium.
> • installation artist – creates large, site-specific works.
> • street artist – creates art in public spaces (graffiti, murals).
> • graphic artist – works in graphic design

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Papirfoldning.dk]

About the term "origami artist": I believe it appears because of how the 
English language is formed and that calling yourself an "origami artist" does 
not necessarily imply that you believe you are doing Art with a capital A.

The word "origami" was successfully introduced by Lillian Oppenheimer as a 
brand name for paper folding. I like how the name is used across all languages 
I know of, and I like the branding part. However, the term has a couple of 
downsides, too. 

One is that "Origami" incorporates the material (paper) and the technique 
(folding) into one word, and that is a limitation. I do not consider myself a 
"paper artist", but a "folder", and will happily fold in other materials. The 
same way that a painter or a sculptor do not imply the materials used for 
painting or sculpting. Note that qualifying the artist form with the material 
can be used, like in "oil painter". See the ChatGPT lookup at the end of the 
mail.

Another is that common people do not know the word, whereas they do know the 
native words like "paper folding" in English, "papirfoldning" in Danish, 
"piegatura della carta" in Italian or "plegado de papel" in Spanish. I treat 
"origami" and "papirfoldning" synonymously, and I use questions such as "what 
is oregano?" as a prompt to talk about origami, but sometimes it would be nice 
if people just knew the term out of the box.

For the current discussion, a third downside is that as a new noun there is no 
verb and no derived profession name. For instance, if you make a painting, you 
paint and you are a painter. If you make sculptures, you sculpt and you are a 
sculptor. However, if you make origami, you ??? and you are a ???. In such 
cases, English language uses the construction "[art form] artist" cf. the list 
at the end of my mail.

"Origami artist" is precisely that linguistic form. Had we stuck to "paper 
folding", we would have called ourselves "folders", or perhaps "paper folders". 
Now that looses the connection to the brand, "origami", and also "folder" are 
not common enough to be recognised by the public as an established profession 
or crafting discipline. "Origamist" is sometimes tentatively used, but feels 
clumsy as it is a really rare word. 

Hence you may end up using "origami artist" without actually implying what you 
make is Art with a capital A. Just like if you (or a small child) are painting, 
you are a painter without implying that you are making Art - whether that 
painting is walls or illustrations or something else.

Best regards,
Hans

Results provided by ChatGPT-5
Commonly used “[something] artist”
•   performance artist – creates live, often experimental art 
events.
•   conceptual artist – focuses on the idea rather than the object.
•   visual artist – broad term for artists working in visual media.
•   digital artist – creates art using digital tools.
•   multimedia artist – works with multiple media (video, sound, 
installation).
•   video artist – works with video as an artistic medium.
•   installation artist – creates large, site-specific works.
•   street artist – creates art in public spaces (graffiti, murals).
•   graphic artist – works in graphic design, illustration, or 
visual communication.
•   commercial artist – produces art for advertising or applied 
purposes.
•   makeup artist – applies makeup for theater, film, fashion, etc.
•   tattoo artist – creates permanent designs on skin.
•   martial artist – practitioner of martial arts (less “artistic,” 
but same form).

Less common but attested
•   sound artist – explores sound as an art form (outside 
traditional music).
•   light artist – works with light installations or projections.
•   fiber artist – works with textiles and fiber materials.
•   ceramic artist – works with clay/ceramics, instead of just 
“potter.”
•   glass artist – works with glass as medium.
•   body artist – uses the body itself as medium (painting, 
piercing, performance).
•   collage artist – specializes in collage.
•   found-object artist – works with ready-made materials.

Patterns
•   These terms are often used when:
1.  The medium is newer (digital, video, performance).
2.  The practice is broader or cross-disciplinary (visual, 
multimedia).
3.  The traditional craft word doesn’t quite exist or feels too 
narrow.

How is the usage of [material] + [artist form]? Answer by ChatGPT-5
1. The default is the role name
•   painter, sculptor, photographer, printmaker → the base 
profession.

2. Material/medium qualifiers

Artists are often described by medium, especially when it’s important to 
distinguish their practice:
•   oil painter – used, though not as common as painter; usual

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Hi Tung, very quickly.

All of your links are related to us origamists. Is there anyone who is not
an origamist who has defined origami as art, or is it only us, folders and
creators, who define origami as art?

I think origami can (and should) be its own thing, like photography should
> be its own thing
>

This is a reasonable statement, but do you really think that we,
origamists, are those who can and should "elevate" origami from a technique
to an art form?

I believe (but I could be wrong) that photography was included among the
visual arts when the international community of artists and in general art
lovers (and also galleries, merchants, art curators, art fairs
organizers...) began to appreciate and define it as such. That's my
impression.
In our frenetic contemporary world, where everything moves at the speed of
light, we origami artists feel an extreme need to accelerate the natural
evolution of origami and almost 'impose' it as an art form on the outside
world.
I don't like this, excuse me for saying so. I find it inappropriate,
artificial, satisfying the personal egos of some, and I find it jeopardises
the natural development and growth of origami.

Do we really need to seek out those spotlights that we would like to
illuminate this self-styled new art form? If that happens, I would like it
to be because the world out there discovers us, gradually and over time
(perhaps even in a generation). Instead, it seems that we are all in a mad
rush.

Lorenzo



Lorenzo Lucioni
Duesseldorf - Germany
lorenzo.luci...@gmail.com

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Hello everyone,

Goran's comment is interesting because it provides a concrete example that
covers various aspects, thank you for your contribution.

However, I would like to clarify that this thread started with me and my
desire to try to calm the spirits of a community (ours) that is
increasingly eager to see art everywhere, in the beautiful origami we see
every day. With my initial comment, I tried to say that “not everything we
like and are enthusiastic about is art” because, in the end, this is what I
think is happening among us, where every day I see a new origami artist
emerge (who until yesterday was “just” a creative origamist).

My intention seems to have failed, because we have now come to say that
“not all origami is art”. Well, this is obvious and certain, just as it is
certain that the sun will set and that sooner or later we will die. The
point is much more complex (and, in my opinion, interesting) than simply
concluding that “not all origami is art”.

Can art be made with origami?
Yes, but I think that's pretty obvious. Just as Kounellis made art with
rusty camp beds from an orphanage, or Beuys made art with a lemon and a
bulb, or Burden made art by getting shot at, folded paper allows art to be
made.

But how? Is it enough for the finished product to be beautiful to our eyes
for it to be a work of art?
No. This question, which may seem philosophical to many, is actually a
great way to learn something new, and this question is actually at the
heart of my attempt to calm the spirits of the many self-styled origami
artists and ourselves all, to get back down to earth and learn (a little
more) to understand art.

Among the many criteria that can be cited to recognise a work of art is
that of the expression of a need, a feeling, an inner urge, a concept that
one wants to express and that the act of expressing it involves the artist
himself not only manually (concretely), but in a much broader sense, from
past life to experiences, from one's own beliefs and ideologies to
sufferings, pains and passions.

Being creative and being an artist are very different things. And promoting
yourself from creative to artist is, more often than not, a risky and
unfounded act, which (no offence) shows ignorance, if not presumption.
Somewhere I read, “At a certain point in my life, I chose to be an Origami
Artist”, which, in my eyes, speaks volumes about the degree of arrogance,
conceit and...

Underestimating the importance of “being an artist”, not understanding what
it means, and therefore seeing artists everywhere around us (as long as
they have folded a “wow” origami) is what the vast majority of us do.

With that, I conclude: it is not up to us to say who is an artist and who
is not, which origami is a work of art and which is not. Because making
art, and being an artist, is much (much, much) more than the simple
aesthetics of one's creation. Those who have seriously frequented the world
of contemporary art for a long time, to the point of developing specific
awareness and sensitivity, would be very cautious in defining the (albeit
beautiful) origami we see every day as art.

Lorenzo

On Fri, 12 Sept 2025 at 09:51, Tung Ken Lam via Origami <
origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> wrote:

> Thanks to Madonna and Goran for their specific examples and insights.
>
> I think some of the examples support Eric Kenneway’s belief that an
> origami model “can look charming, as can many objects which are not art
> works, but it is the rhythm of fold lines and balance of shapes apparent on
> the surface which are admired in such a case.”
>
> Kenneway also wrote, “If there is an art in origami then it exists within
> the sequence of folds [transforming] a sheet of paper into a model.” That
> has influenced my origami, but of course others are free to disagree.
>


-- 

Lorenzo Lucioni
Duesseldorf - Germany
lorenzo.luci...@gmail.com

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Tung Ken Lam via Origami]

Thanks to Madonna and Goran for their specific examples and insights.

I think some of the examples support Eric Kenneway’s belief that an origami 
model “can look charming, as can many objects which are not art works, but it 
is the rhythm of fold lines and balance of shapes apparent on the surface which 
are admired in such a case.”

Kenneway also wrote, “If there is an art in origami then it exists within the 
sequence of folds [transforming] a sheet of paper into a model.” That has 
influenced my origami, but of course others are free to disagree.

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Goran Konjevod via Origami]

I would like to echo everything that Madonna says. The way I see it is
origami can be a technique or medium (depending on how exactly you
interpret the words) for creating art, but not everything that's origami
will be art. (But then not everything that's painted will be art either.)

But to add examples: there are a number of curators aware of artistic merit
of various origami and origami-based work; in addition to Meher McArthur,
there are reputable museums whose staff have organized origami-centered
exhibitions or included origami in their permanent collections (MOMA in New
York has work by the Demaines; Asian Art Museum in San Francisco put up a
brief exhibition a few years ago featuring work by Robert Lang, Linda
Mihara and myself), and there are other examples. Ruth Asawa's life work
was just featured in a retrospective exhibition at SFMOMA and is traveling
to New York next. The exhibition includes both paper and metal sculptures
based on simple origami tessellations. The value is not in the pattern, but
in what is done with it. (For comparison, she alone is probably to credit
with making wire crochet into a sculptural art form. It's not the mechanics
of the technique that makes art. It's what's done with it.)

For another parallel, ceramics has a long tradition as craft, but also
contains modern art-craft trends where not all the pieces need to be
functional. Similarly with basketry, especially in Japan there are many
examples of abstract, nonfunctional "baskets" that are more modern art
objects than anything else. But it doesn't always end up classified as art.
Many more examples along the same lines: weaving and other "fiber arts",
etc. In the "high craft" communities (not a precise term) there aren't many
examples of origami, but there are some: among the artists shortlisted for
the Loewe Foundation Craft Prize in 2024 was Luis Santos Montes with a
piece "Cristalizacion Organica Esmeralda", which is origami in the style of
Le Crimp. Are such works of craft that Loewe Foundation judges to be high
quality also art? I would find it hard to say they are not.

It is up to us, individual artists/craftspeople to change the image (if
that's something you want to do) and spread the word about the possibility
of expression using origami. It may or may not help to call it origami, but
I've never shied away from the term. I've had work regularly in galleries
side-by-side with "mainstream" art all over the San Francisco Bay
Area--both in juried exhibitions and in those where the gallery owners or
curators invited artists to participate. The work I've shown has sold no
worse than many other types of 2d or 3d art and I have people who come back
regularly to see my shows and buy more pieces (I hesitate to call them
"collectors"). I haven't noticed a difference between when I've used the
word origami and when I haven't. (But I have on many occasions been asked
"That's not origami, is it?" and most of the time I felt the question was
motivated by the feeling that the person asking saw more in the work than
they expected to be possible using origami. Again, it's not the individual
folds, or the fact that it's all done by folding; it's the result that
counts. You do get an occasional "so it's just paper?", but what can you
do...)

Anyway, apologies if this comes off as a rant; it's been brewing for a while

Goran

On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 1:32 PM mado...@gatheringfolds.com <
mado...@gatheringfolds.com> wrote:

> I think that there are plenty of curators and arts organizations that
> recognize origami as art, but that doesn't mean that all origami is art or
> even that all well-made origami is art.
>
> As far as the Associated Artists of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh Society
> of Artists are concerned, my origami tessellations are art.
> These are both very selective groups of artists that jury in new members
> and have several shows throughout the year.
> I was accepted the first time I applied to both of these groups (many
> artists try for years to get in) and I've sold work at their shows and
> reliably get accepted to their curated group shows.
>
> I'm still working on getting into the Three Rivers Arts Festival, but
> there's usually at least two other origami art booths there so it's not
> like they're opposed to origami.
> I have seen exclusionary language around origami in an art festival
> application once, but it was clear that the organizers didn't know the
> current scope of the origami field.
> One of the most common questions I get when people see my tessellations
> for the first time is "Surely that's too complicated to still be called
> origami, right?", so there does seem to be an association in the general
> public between "origami" and "simple folding for kids", but a growing
> number of curators (notably Meher McArthur) are treating origami as a fine
> art medium.
>
> I don't think that origami as a whole can be considered art or not art —
> only individual pieces made with origami techniques can 

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[mado...@gatheringfolds.com]

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Hi everyone,

Laura, your observation is pretty interesting.
I agree with you that we can certainly do something (and a lot) to spread
awareness of Origami, and by doing so we will undoubtedly contribute to
changing its perception, because by spreading awareness we will indirectly
stimulate other actions (whether further research, developments, or
modifications...) and all this will contribute to changing its perception.
That said, however, I would not want our intention to be, from the outset,
to change its perception in the sense of Art, because otherwise, once
again, we will be the ones elevating it to the level of Art, ourselves from
within, as "stakeholders" involved and interested.


Tung Ken, thank you for your valuable contribution, but I must admit that I
am rather put off by your repeated quoting of other people's words, perhaps
out of context. I cannot engage in discussion in this way.
I would have much preferred you Tung Ken, to express your well-argued and
explained opinion, to tell me (with your words) why you think Origami is a
technique for making art, or even why you think it should be promoted from
“technique” directly to “art form” (as you showed us happened with
photography).


However, I am also aware that this discussion is seen as philosophical
musing, and probably seems tedious and pointless to most people. And I
admit that is quite true.
Nevertheless, I would urge caution when elevating Origami to Art with such
force because there is to me a great difference between creating and
folding (even beautiful) Origami and creating Art. The process of creating
Art involves a wide variety of aspects that must be found in folding
Origami, before everything else.
I don't think it's appropriate to attribute artistic value to Origami
_regardless_ because of the risk of distorting the nature of Origami in
itself. It has always been for us an exciting creative (and no, not
everything that is creative is Art) and performative technique, and I
really wouldn't see this distorted by the desire to see Art (maybe by
people who have never been involved in any artistic context in their lives).

As a technique, it has enormous potential, and its evolution, in my
opinion, should be free from artistic expectations.
For some of us, it is a way of making Art, yes absolutely, but that does
not mean that Origami is Art regardless.

We might tend to see Origami as Art because Origami seems fantastic to us,
and the acritical association between ‘Beautiful’ and ‘Art’ is widespread.
For many people out there, the sculptor who carves garden gnomes and sells
them at the local market is an artist.
It is also possible that we unconsciously fail to understand why others
don't like Origami, and so we force ourselves to define it as Art to give
it a "universal" value, according to which it should be recognized as
something valuable. Contemporary man is increasingly less humble and more
pretentious, and realizing that Origami doesn't mean much to other
people... can be hurtful.

I like calling things by their proper name, because words are very
important, and if you use them wisely, you have an excellent chance of
continuing to appreciate, value, and develop what you've called by its
proper name, free from malice and exploitation, often stemming from the
egos of individuals. If we "spoil" ourselves by thinking of ourselves as
artists or frequenters of an artistic context... in my opinion we are not
doing any good to ourselves and to Origami.

Lorenzo

On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 17:48, Tung Ken Lam  wrote:

> Hi Lorenzo,
>
> I do not know any non-origami art people who say that origami is art.
>
> Some origami people like Eric Kenneway argued persuasively that origami is
> not ‘Art-with-a-capital-A’. Dave Mitchell also said that origami is not
> art, but “if I fold paper in order to satisfy my aesthetic sense (because I
> find process of folding paper, or the result of that process, beautiful)
> then that is indeed art, and art of the purest kind.”
> https://www.origamiheaven.com/abrieftheoryofart.htm
>
> I think George Hart’s observations about ‘math art’ could apply equally to
> origami:
>
> “[the accepted art authorities judge] much of what is presented in our art
> exhibitions and publications is not truly ‘fine art.’ The sad truth is that
> no experts from these organizations are rushing over to our mathematical
> art exhibitions and being impressed by what they find. We must admit that
> in terms of their culturally accepted notions of art, something is lacking.
> ...
>
> [the works] of the math/art community are largely craft, design, models,
> and visualization, not fine art. ...
>
> To reconcile these issues, perhaps what we call an ‘Art Exhibition’ should
> be rebranded as something like ‘Exhibition of Mathematical Art, Craft,
> Design, Models, and Visualization.’ ...
> Beyond any benefits of self-honesty, this labelling might aid us in
> appearing more modest to any fine art communities that consider our
> math/art 

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Tung Ken Lam via Origami]

Hi Lorenzo,

I do not know any non-origami art people who say that origami is art. 

Some origami people like Eric Kenneway argued persuasively that origami is not 
‘Art-with-a-capital-A’. Dave Mitchell also said that origami is not art, but 
“if I fold paper in order to satisfy my aesthetic sense (because I find process 
of folding paper, or the result of that process, beautiful) then that is indeed 
art, and art of the purest kind.” 
https://www.origamiheaven.com/abrieftheoryofart.htm 

I think George Hart’s observations about ‘math art’ could apply equally to 
origami:

“[the accepted art authorities judge] much of what is presented in our art 
exhibitions and publications is not truly ‘fine art.’ The sad truth is that no 
experts from these organizations are rushing over to our mathematical art 
exhibitions and being impressed by what they find. We must admit that in terms 
of their culturally accepted notions of art, something is lacking. ...

[the works] of the math/art community are largely craft, design, models, and 
visualization, not fine art. ...

To reconcile these issues, perhaps what we call an ‘Art Exhibition’ should be 
rebranded as something like ‘Exhibition of Mathematical Art, Craft, Design, 
Models, and Visualization.’ ...
Beyond any benefits of self-honesty, this labelling might aid us in appearing 
more modest to any fine art communities that consider our math/art to be below 
their artistic standards ”

Regards,
Tung Ken

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Tung Ken Lam via Origami]

 Hi Lorenzo and others,
Debating origami and art seems to be as common as discussing origami and 
copyright. Why doesn’t origami get the respect that some people think it 
deserves? Why are origami books in the crafts section of a bookshop or library? 
And so on.
Here are three CfC talks that are relevant:
Lee Armstrong’s talk, Why your origami is NOT ART - and why it IS  
https://cfcorigami.com/sites/default/files/2024-06/Lee%20Armstrong%20CFC%20why%20your%20origami%20etc.pptx_.pdf
I developed some of Lee’s themes in my talk, What Kind of Art is Origami? 
https://cfcorigami.com/sites/default/files/2025-05/04%20TungKenLamCfCWhatKindOfArtIsOrigami015.pdf).
 The world of ‘MathArt’ also has a similar relationship with the globalised 
elite artworld.
Nicolas Terry took a refreshingly different approach in his talk, The Art in 
Origami: Beyond Intellectual Debates 
https://cfcorigami.com/sites/default/files/2025-05/11%20The%20Art%20in%20Origami%20Beyond%20Intellectual%20Debates%20%281%29.pdf).
Videos for the first talk are at 
https://cfcorigami.com/convention/cfc4-colchester ; the second and third talks 
are at https://cfcorigami.com/convention/cfc5-hanoi  

I think origami can (and should) be its own thing, like photography should be 
its own thing:

‘Photography can never grow up if it imitates some other medium. It has to walk 
alone; it has to be itself.’ Berenice Abbott (1898–1991)

Regards,Tung Ken

On Tuesday, 26 August 2025, 20:47:06 GMT+1, Lorenzo via Origami 
 wrote:  
 ...> Contemporary man is increasingly less humble and more pretentious, and 
realizing that origami doesn't mean much to other people... can be hurtful.
> If we "spoil" ourselves by thinking of ourselves as artists or frequenters of 
> an artistic context... in my opinion we are not doing any good to ourselves 
> and to origami.
Regards,Lorenzo

-- 

Lorenzo LucioniDuesseldorf - germanylorenzo.luci...@gmail.com
  

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Hi Gerardo, Hans,

Unfortunately, I didn't receive Hans's reply (I also checked my spam
folder), meaning the ML mail server must have failed to dispatch it to me.
Thanks, Gerardo, for pointing it out.
I'll answer a few points below, also at Gerardo's request, but I think I'll
stop here, because it's probably a topic that's of interest only to me.

Personally, my concept of art is much more stringent than Hans has
portrayed.
For example Hans wrote:

> Sometimes in origami we see one person excelling in designing origami
> models at intricate levels of detail, but another person to fold a model
> exquisitely, making the model a piece of art.


For me, that tends to involve manual skill, observation skills, the ability
to translate nature onto paper (when, for example, folding an animal), and
things like that... but not necessarily an artist, and not necessarily
art. There's a difference between folding beautiful origami and creating
art, for many reasons, including (but not limited to) those I mentioned in
my previous email.
In essence, I have the impression that we easily confuse mastery and
executive ability with artistic gesture and art itself.

As a frequent visitor to contemporary art venues, spaces, and fairs, I
recognize that this confusion isn't unique to origami, of course. A pole
stuck in the ground can have enormous artistic value, yet be a terribly
poor and "ugly" object to look at (even if it is not conceptual art at all,
but still figurative art). Because the concept of art is something very
different from what people generally think of. It goes without saying that
the ease (and superficiality) with which one attributes artistic value to
origami clearly shows how much ignorance there is in the artistic field.

I would also like to point out that, generally speaking, the art world is
ahead of its time and human trends, and if even today there have not yet
been consolidated examples of Origami and Origamists "elevated" to Art and
Artist status, we can (should) deduce that for contemporary artistic
sensibility origami is not (yet) a technique with which to create art on a
large scale (except, obviously, in some limited cases).

The fact that the attribution of art comes from within (from us origamists)
unfortunately doesn't mean much, because what constitutes art is decided by
humanity (as well as the market), not by us involved players.
Moreover, I have the impression that origami will probably never be
recognized as an excellent artistic technique, because contemporary art is
increasingly less visual and more conceptual, and the various artistic
sensibilities and expressive forms are increasingly conceptual.

Hans wrote:

> A note on terminology: The word "art" can both mean "skill" and
> "(aesthetic) objects produced through skill and imagination". Thus a book
> called "The art of drawing" is not about drawings that are art, but about
> drawing skills, techniques, and a book called "The Art of Folding"
> explaining skills and techniques for doing origami is named appropriately.


What you write is certainly correct, but you write it because you've
stopped to think about that question, or perhaps you've looked up the
various definitions of "Art." For the rest of the origamists out there,
unfortunately, a book "The Art of Origami" (even more when written by a
pioneer like Randlett) means nothing more than that Origami is Art.
And hence, for me, the absolute necessity of being firm and radical in our
positions and attributions; otherwise, confusion takes over, and anything
and its opposite applies.

Hans wrote:

> Origami is a noun, and so "The Art of Origami" could be about the skills
> and techniques, and another book called "The Art of Origami" could contain
> actual art works by renowned origami artists like Fuse, Garibi, Lang or
> others, just like an art book with paintings.


Here's another example: of the three names mentioned, I can immediately
recognize artistic value in the artifacts of only one of the three
creatives, and not for most of his career. For the rest, I would call them
Masters or Artisans or whatever you like, but definitely not Artists.

Gerardo wrote:

> Now, I am more interested in a point you made in your original email,
> Lorenzo: 'I consider it extremely important for an aspect that I believe to
> be pivotal in the evolution of origami, which is the deep respect we must
> have for ourselves and for origami itself, and to avoid praising origami by
> attributing a value of "art."' I would love to hear more about the concept
> of origami as a non-artistic practice and its evolution. Your ideas are
> enticing, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could elaborate on this
> aspect.


Gerardo, I'm afraid I don't fully understand what you mean.
One reason why I don't think it's appropriate to attribute artistic value
to origami regardless is certainly the risk of distorting its nature as an
exciting (for us) creative and performative technique, driven as we are by
the des

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Gerardo via Origami]

Thank you Lorenzo for answering my questions, and Hans for sharing more
insights.

I want to add that there’s a tendency to value art as 'something that is
created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses
important ideas or feelings' more highly than art as 'an activity that
requires special knowledge or skill' (both definitions are from The
Britannica Dictionary). Eric Kenneway in *Complete Origami* distinguishes
between these meanings by using a capital 'A' for the former and a
lowercase 'a' for the latter, reflecting this hierarchy. However, this
valuation is not a universal truth. In this regard, I recommend the book *The
Craftsman* by Richard Sennett, which highlights the unrecognized importance
and beauty of the abilities or skills 'involved in doing or making
something' (Longman Dictionary). Not so long ago, I started to sense
something that I think has been obvious to many other paper folders:
origami yields a performative force. Through its selfless sharing, it tries
to question capitalism—a la Michele de Certeau in *The Practice of Everyday
Life*—and the canons of Art; this book explores how ordinary practices like
origami challenge dominant cultural narratives in subtle ways. Origami also
seems to have a performative character in the step-sequences that are
shared with others and the effect they generate in those who follow
through. The following online description of a fellow origamist expresses
these ideas well: 'While admiring colleagues' aspirations to fine art, he
believes origami is a people's art and finds more beauty in the casual
sharing of models than in a gallery.

Now, I am more interested in a point you made in your original email,
Lorenzo: 'I consider it extremely important for an aspect that I believe to
be pivotal in the evolution of origami, which is the deep respect we must
have for ourselves and for origami itself, and to avoid praising origami by
attributing a value of "art."' I would love to hear more about the concept
of origami as a non-artistic practice and its evolution. Your ideas are
enticing, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could elaborate on this
aspect.


Thanks in advance.

--

*Gerardo G.*
gerardo(a)neorigami.com 
[image: Image] instagram.com/NeorigamiCom
*Knowledge and Curiosity in Origami:*
*six private** classe**s online* 

"(...) It doesn’t happen often, but when it does, it takes your breath away
and fills you with the true joy of *origami*. I experienced this in my
lessons with Gerardo G. I wouldn’t trade it for anything. Gerardo is (...)" *C.
R.* *Read the full review*

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Hi Gerardo,

We talked about wars, we talked about peace, we talked about inclusion, and
we (all but me) mentioned origami as the perfect tool for all of this (for
peace, against wars, for inclusion... and things like that). But why all
this? On what basis? Is there something that origami has that crochet or
fishing don't?

For those who strongly supported his thesis, the connection was that
Origami is Art and, as such, it is peace, “because all Art is synonymous
with Peace”, they said.

Given that there is a lot of valid Art that stems from violence, conflict
and opposition (and in certain periods and contexts of the past it was even
the majority), and that Art connected with Peace is overall in the minority
(and there is little to debate on this point), I could not even accept that
Origami was considered Art. And that's how it all started, much longer than
what I have written to you.

Unfortunately, in my opinion many people have a pressing need to feel that
they are on the right side, to assert themselves as good and honest people,
to elevate themselves (in a certain way) from the ugly contemporary context
in which we live. And Origami, for some, becomes the tool (baselessly) for
all of this.

Specifically, we were talking about Gaza, but the issue is still valid in
any other context.

Recently, someone wrote to me (accurately representing my thoughts):
“I agree. It annoys me when people call for 1,000 cranes after things like
mass school shootings rather than promoting rational discussion on how to
stop these heinous acts”.

This brief observation was in response to another comment of mine about the
origami crane as a symbol of peace. I wrote:
"The origami crane has a 15-century-long history, probably more, and its
symbolism (healing from sickness and bad influence) is equally long. Sadako
is “just” eighty years ago. We can of course (and we, contemporary people,
already did actually) work for an analogy between Sadako's leukaemia and
peace, but still it's a “modern/contemporary” thing. I understand that
people want to be good, believe in peace, and demonstrate their kindness
and pacifism, but the fact remains that countless objects and concepts can
be uncritically associated with peace and made symbols of peace, and doing
so distorts their original meaning and disrespects them. In my opinion,
those who love origami should respect it more and not so easily accept
that, out of an obvious do-gooder impulse, the crane is associated with a
symbolism it didn't have. I like to mention: “If nothing matters, there is
nothing to save” (said by an elderly Jewish woman, just liberated from
Auschwitz in 1945, malnourished, who refused non-kosher food)."


Regards,
Lorenzo

On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 at 23:42, Gerardo via Origami <
origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> wrote:

> I really enjoyed your text, Lorenzo! It was very coherent and well-argued.
> Thank you for sharing it.
>
> You mentioned that you had the opportunity to address the topic of
> ‘Origami and Art’ and that your writing was in response to a specific
> question. Would you mind elaborating on the context that inspired your
> text? What was the situation? Were there different perspectives on the
> matter? What was the question that prompted your writing?
>
> I believe that many discussions about origami and art could benefit from a
> deeper exploration of their context to provide a broader perspective.
>
>
> Thanks again!
> --
>
> *Gerardo G.*
> gerardo(a)neorigami.com 
> [image: Image] instagram.com/NeorigamiCom
> *Knowledge and Curiosity in Origami:*
> *six private** classe**s online* 
>
> "(...) It doesn’t happen often, but when it does, it takes your breath
> away and fills you with the true joy of *origami*. I experienced this in
> my lessons with Gerardo G. I wouldn’t trade it for anything. Gerardo is
> (...)" *C. R.*
> *Read the full review* 
>
>

-- 

Lorenzo Lucioni
Duesseldorf - Germany
lorenzo.luci...@gmail.com

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Papirfoldning.dk]

Basically I agree. Origami, and more generally folding, is not art in itself, but a technique.I welcome Lorenzo's take. To pinpoint one's inner motivation and feelings is difficult and precisely why defining art is so elusive. Your "own artistic language" seems a bit easier to grasp, even if discussions about originality and plagiarism rear their heads here.In the end "a recognised and recognisable ability to express yourself" is likely the most precise definition, even if frustratingly non-operational.Sometimes in origami we see one person excelling in designing origami models at intricate levels of detail, but another person to fold a model exquisitely, making the model a piece of art. That separation of designer and folder seems why origami is often compared to music (composer and musician), more so than painting, writing or sculpting. Maybe crocheting or knitting has the same feature - I imagine you could be a master of designing knitting patterns without excelling in knitting, and vice versa.A note on terminology: The word "art" can both mean "skill" and "(aesthetic) objects produced through skill and imagination". Thus a book called "The art of drawing" is not about drawings that are art, but about drawing skills, techniques, and a book called "The Art of Folding" explaining skills and techniques for doing origami is named appropriately. Origami is a noun, and so "The Art of Origami" could be about the skills and techniques, and another book called "The Art of Origami" could contain actual art works by renowned origami artists like Fuse, Garibi, Lang or others, just like an art book with paintings. To disambiguate the former, should you call it "The Art of Doing Origami"?Best regards,	HansHans Dybkjærhttp://papirfoldning.dkSociety: http://foldning.dkDen 16. aug. 2025 kl. 23.42 skrev Gerardo via Origami :I really enjoyed your text, Lorenzo! It was very coherent and well-argued. Thank you for sharing it.
You mentioned that you had the opportunity to address the topic of ‘Origami and Art’ and that your writing was in response to a specific question. Would you mind elaborating on the context that inspired your text? What was the situation? Were there different perspectives on the matter? What was the question that prompted your writing?
I believe that many discussions about origami and art could benefit from a deeper exploration of their context to provide a broader perspective.
Thanks again!--Gerardo G.gerardo(a)neorigami.com instagram.com/NeorigamiComKnowledge and Curiosity in Origami:six private classes online"(...)
 It doesn’t happen often, but when it does, it takes your breath away 
and fills you with the true joy of origami. I experienced this in my 
lessons with Gerardo G. I wouldn’t trade it for anything. Gerardo is 
(...)" C. R. Read the full review

Re: [Origami] Origami and Art

[Gerardo via Origami]

I really enjoyed your text, Lorenzo! It was very coherent and well-argued.
Thank you for sharing it.

You mentioned that you had the opportunity to address the topic of ‘Origami
and Art’ and that your writing was in response to a specific question.
Would you mind elaborating on the context that inspired your text? What was
the situation? Were there different perspectives on the matter? What was
the question that prompted your writing?

I believe that many discussions about origami and art could benefit from a
deeper exploration of their context to provide a broader perspective.


Thanks again!
--

*Gerardo G.*
gerardo(a)neorigami.com 
[image: Image] instagram.com/NeorigamiCom
*Knowledge and Curiosity in Origami:*
*six private** classe**s online* 

"(...) It doesn’t happen often, but when it does, it takes your breath away
and fills you with the true joy of *origami*. I experienced this in my
lessons with Gerardo G. I wouldn’t trade it for anything. Gerardo is (...)" *C.
R.*
*Read the full review*